On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:09:49AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 17:06 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > O > > My proposal is to allow *.la files to live and kindly divert people > > crying too loud about it to assist upstream in fixing the > > issues. Don't forget that there are already patches for dealing with > > 95% of our issues available. > > I'm really not trying to rehash this thread, but the original reason for > nuking .la files was the nasty tendency they had of creating bogus (?) > dependency spirals of doom. Am I wrong in remembering that? If I'm not > wrong, has this been solved somehow? Well, when I tried to hit the edge of the wedge into this back in October I asked | Revisting the root of evil. What exactly is wrong with not removing | all *.la files? There were tons of answers only not really on-topic for that question. I still think that the possible issues were overmagnified and the pain of carrying them outweighs the pain we've already have to go through. I also wonder how we manged to live with them previously and why other distributions haven't been eaten by the spiral of doom. So let me ask again: What's really that bad about including the current *.la files into devel by default (unless really needed in main packages) other than a couple more dependencies between *-devel packages and how bad are these "bloated" devel interdependencies? I'd really like to see people fix the issue upstream than trying to engineer the output (again: there are already patches obviously working for several cases, there is no need to rewrite libtool from scratch). Any statement on omitting which *.la files had to be revised a couple of months later, which is in the nature of working against upstream conventions. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJ5VD7YpKmq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
